Relations between the UK and Brazil were strengthened this month following the signing last week in Brazil of a Defence Cooperation Treaty between the two countries, according to the English publication Defence News and Business. Read full article

This is quite a strange article. No one from Brazil is quoted. It even seems the UK has signed a treaty with the Muteland. And I don't think this treaty implies a change in Brazil's stance towards the islands issue. As one can clearly see in the article, the UK is sucking up to Brazil, not the other way around. It is Brazil who is in the position to do the bargaining, not the other way around. The UK is in no position to require a change in Brazil's position.

Well, as for the article itself, this talk of a Brazil-UK friendship is pathetic. During the XIX century the relationship between these two countries was basically one of shameless exploitation by the UK and meek resistence by Brazil. Brazil was frequently subjected to exploitative accords with the UK and the unnecessarily humiliating attitude of UK ambassadors to that country. So much so, that in a rare deed of pride, Pedro II of Brazil cut relations with the UK in 1871.

I see the Argentine posters have go into the past yet again and are unable. To live in the present. Since when does 1871 have any relevance. With that kind of argument then what the he'll are Germany doing in the EU?

If Brazil support Argentina they why do ships involved in the FI oil exploration port in Brazil?

The beauty of the last 25 years of Argie-Brazilian relationship is the steady shift from divergence through parallelism to convergence during the last 25 years.

Today, Brazil and Argentina’s “best interests” are, more or less, the same…………….

My personal evaluation is that, thanks to the British haughtiness about the “Malvinas Issue”,the Islands case can be developed from a little forgotten pastoralist South Atlantic anecdote to an interesting, productive and winnable “South vs North” argument.

I don´t really believe that the UK is trying to establish a closer relationship with Brazil because of....what-ever-the-name islands conflict with Argentina.

Nor do I believe Argentina should worry about Brazil´s relations with the UK even if those relations are of a military or defense nature.

The conflict was already dealt by military means with disastrous consequences for Argentina.

So it is beyond that and can only be dealt with by economic or political means.

If instead of waging a war they never had a chance to win in the first place, Argentina had pursued a more intelligent approach maintaining and promoting the growth of Argentinian-descent islanders, maintaining good friendly relationships with all islanders regardless of their ethnic or national background, promoting trade and all kinds of relationships with the islands and promoting a silent but steady Argentinian immigration to the island, today the islands would have an Argentinian majority and could argue that sovereignty resides on popular political will or consensus of the inhabitants of a territory, bla, bla, bla.

Well, Beef, it was Mr Howarth who adduced a 1823 event to suggest that Brazil and UK have a long-term friendship.

An interesting aside, out of curiosity: In Latin America Brazil was the only country that didn't need to resort to an armed revolt against its metropolis prior to declaring independence. Portugal seemed willing to accept the Brazilian declaration with no strings attached. The UK had a better idea, though. It convinced Portugal to charge a high value in gold in order to accept the declaration - a value the king of Brazil Pedro I accepted to pay: perhaps because he himself was later to become the Portuguese king. The gold, however, wound up in British banks - for Portugal was itself highly indebted to the UK.
During the XIX century, Brazil contracted so many debts to the British empire, that only by the mid-XX century - after World War II, if I'm not mistaken - it managed to pay off all the debts - debts that had been maginified by dirty tricks as that one reported above. When Brazil severed relations with Britain in 1871, it was basically declaring independence for the 2nd time.
That is what Howarth naustagically calls friendship.

I don't see how...or even why? the UK would suck up to brazil. You're getting a bit too over excited on what this means, it has nothing to do with the islands or who supports who, nations still have diplomatic communication and progress even when they disagree about issues, even between argentina and UK. It's not an all or nothing situation.

relationship between these two countries was basically one of shameless exploitation by the UK and meek resistence by Brazil

...What...? It's a defence agreement and joint training missions...That doesn't even make sence. The Defence Cooperation Treaty mainly about technology sharing(E.G. We will be selling brazil the new frigate tech.) and joint training which 90% of the worlds nations do together.

I'm not too excited about anything. Brazil has dozens of such treaties. In 2010 alone it signed three of them - with the US, Italy and India - and the Minister of Defence is right now in UAE working for another one. And if you wanna know how I feel, there would be no agreement with the UK. The Brits in here are the ones that seem excited, they are the ones using the agreement to suggest that somehow Brazil is turning its back to Argentina. And what I said on shameless exploitation by the UK in relation to Brazil, was obviously about the relation between the two countries during the XIX and early XX centuries - a relation which the article tries to paint as one of friendship. Can't you read? And yeah, the UK officials were sucking up to Brazil big time. A self-confident, trail-blazing world power, They are a strong ally and a stabilising influence in Latin America?? C'mon, is that really Brazil?

All nations use such language when meeting other nations as not to offend the other nation. They are there to promote business and basicly play toggether(war games) it doesn't suit well to insult the other nation. You are getting over excited about it.

Zethee, again: if it somehow depended on me, there would be no agreement at all with the UK. I don't think that agreement has any importance, it's obvious Brazil is only signing it because it wants to put its eggs on many baskets, a move that will give it increased power to bargain for more access to better technology or lower prices. I'd rather counsel the Brits to take a cold shower. Since after the US slowdown, Argentina has become Brazil's most important market for manufactured products. So, there's no way Brazil would turn its back to Argentina just to get some boats it can possibily buy from some four other European states with which it has longer and better relations (France, Germany, Italy, even Russia).

Well, as for not trying to offend the other nation, I think the Brits overdid their mission, didn't they? Or perhaps they are too accustomed to using adulatory language - a vice it possibly acquired from its decades of special relationship with the US.

Jose. You were doing OK until you got to promoting the growth of Argentinian-descent islanders, maintaining good friendly relationships with all islanders regardless of their ethnic or national background, promoting trade and all kinds of relationships with the islands and promoting a silent but steady Argentinian immigration to the island, today the islands would have an Argentinian majority and could argue that “sovereignty resides on popular political will or consensus of the inhabitants of a territory.

Do you think the Islanders are stupid? Grow up. I think you'll find that an Argentine on the Islands doesn't get a vote. He/she doesn't get a vote until he/she gets British Overseas Territories citizenship. Anyone with that citizenship promoting Argentine ambitions promptly becomes a traitor. Removal of citizenship and expulsion.

I think the Brits overdid their mission, didn't they?
No, all nations are polite in this way.

there would be no agreement at all with the UK. I don't think that agreement has any importance, it's obvious Brazil is only signing it because it wants to put its eggs on many baskets

Again, take a cold shower, it's just a mutual defence treaty you are getting WAY over excited about it all. It just shows that the two nations are co operating in areas of defence such as the new frigate, it has nothing to do with Argentina or Brazil's relationship with Argentina.

If Brazil felt so badly about it they could buy there ships elsewhere.

I don't think all nations are all that polite, Zethee. I think it's just the UK - y'known, you guys have the vocation for being other nation's puppy, or poodle, if you'd like.

And cease with this you're too excited stuff. What are you, a 5 yo? And I know what the damn treaty means, I know the UK has many of them, I known Brazil has many of them, I known why Brazil is signing it - because it want to diversify partners, and that will give it increased batgaining advantage - and I've been saying all along that it doesn't mean anything about Argentina. Do not use the points I myself have been raising to lecture me.

About them, whom you need to lecture about, is own countrymen. They are the ones saying that the treaty means such nonsense as that Brazil will do what it perceives is in Brazil's best interest ..... not what is necessarily in Argentina's best in.

I don't think all nations are all that polite, Zethee. I think it's just the UK - y'known, you guys have the vocation for being other nation's puppy, or poodle, if you'd like.

Ok, find me a link where one nations navy meets anothers and the join eachother on eachothers ships and then insults the other's navy. Go on, find one.

You can't. Because it doesn't happen. All nations are polite when making business deals or trips like this, it's the whole point.

What are you, a 5 yo?

But it's you acting like an excited child.

Brazil will do what it perceives is in Brazil's best interest ..... not what is necessarily in Argentina's best in.
They are saying that because it's true, all nations do this with NO exceptions. Brazil keeps close ties with Argentina because it's in there intrests, Brazil signed the treaty because it's in her intrests.

Pft! Insulting other nations? Why would they do that? No, I wouldn't think that one nation will insult another when their navies meet for some war games. But I don't think most of them would pull off their pants to the other nation like the UK did in this case.

They are saying that because it's true, all nations do this with NO exceptions. Brazil keeps close ties with Argentina because it's in there intrests, Brazil signed the treaty because it's in her intrests

Right. So I can also say the same about Brazil and Indonesia, namely, that Brazil will do what it perceives is in Brazil's best interest ..... not what is necessarily in Indonesia's best in. Context matters, Zethee. Your countryman was clearly implying that the treaty somehow crossed with Argentina's best interests, as were some other Brits on other threads. So, go share with them your great knowledge about the real world.

#17 - Brazil has a defence agreement with Italy !! Really!! They tend to surrender so fast it confuses the enemy :-)

To be fair, Brazil does seem to be colecting defence treaties ... is it worried about something?

Seriously, does anyone actually know what the wording of the treaty is? Does it commit the UK to defending Brazillian interests and does it commit Brazil to defending British interests? Now that could be interesting!